Difference in clinical outcome between total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty used in hemiarthroplasty revision surgery

Introduction:The increase of shoulder replacements will lead to a higher revision rate of shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of revision surgery performed in our hospital, distinguish the differences in clinical outcome according to revision indication and differences between total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in hemiarthroplasty (HA) revision surgery.Results:From July 1994 to July 2008, 39 patients (40 shoulders) underwent revision arthroplasty. Of 19 patients (19 shoulders) we obtained a complete follow-up. The mean age at revision surgery 69 ± 10 years (range: 46-83) and the mean follow-up 41 ± 31 months (range: 10-113). In 7 cases TSA was used for revision when the cuff was intact, 12 times RSA was performed. The indications for the revision were glenoid erosion (n = 4), humeral component malposition (n = 2), cuff-pathology (n = 12) and infection (n = 1). Postoperative constant score 51.7 ± 11.4 for TSA and 31.1 ± 18.7 for RSA (P = 0.008). The DASH was 48.3 ± 25.1 and 68.7 ± 17.5, respectively (P = 0.09). DSST showed 6 ± 4 and 4 ± 4 (P = 0.414). OSS 41.3 ± 10.1 and 28.1 ± 10.3 (P = 0.017). SF-36 43.3 ± 22.1 and 24.5 ± 12.8 (P = 0.072). Four shoulders (21%) presented four complications.Conclusions:In this study, revision surgery showed poor to reasonable postoperative results and better clinical outcome for TSA. When a revision after HA was needed, and the soft-tissue component of the shoulder was intact, a TSA proved to be a preferable solution.     

Convertible implants: Simplifying the revision from anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Modern shoulder arthroplasty techniques include hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Out of all arthroplasty procedures, total shoulder arthroplasty produces more satisfactory outcomes for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthropathy (Sanchez-Sotelo, 2011 [1]). As shoulder arthroplasty procedures continue to increase in popularity, so do revision surgeries (revision TSAs and revision RSAs). Implants used in shoulder arthroplasty procedures have been transformed substantially from generation to generation, going from 1st to 4th generation implants. We propose 5th generation convertible implants that enable a more patient-specific, anatomic reconstruction with the potential to solve major issues that exist with implants from previous years.     

Shoulder function and pain level after revision of failed reverse shoulder replacement to hemiarthroplasty

Background:

The reverse total shoulder replacement has become a popular treatment option for cuff tear arthropathy and other shoulder conditions requiring arthroplasty in the setting of a deficient rotator cuff. Despite a revision rate of as much as 10%, to date, there are few reports of reverse replacement conversion to hemiarthroplasty, and none specifically examining shoulder function.

Materials and Methods:

Six patients with a reverse replacement that was dislocated, infected or loose were revised an average of 9.2 months after the reverse replacement. Two of the three patients that were dislocated also had a known deep infection. Patients with known infection were treated with explant of the reverse prosthesis and conversion to a preformed antibiotic spacer hemiarthroplasty. In three cases with gross loosening of the glenosphere without infection, treatment was performed with removal of glenosphere only, bone grafting of glenoid with allograft and conversion of humeral stem to hemiarthroplasty. Patients were evaluated with outcome scores and physical examination an average of 26.5 months after removal of the reverse prosthesis.

Results:

The average range of motion postoperatively was forward elevation 42.5 degrees and external rotation 1.7 degrees. The VAS pain score was 2.42 (range 0–6); simple shoulder test was 3.17 (range 1–5); and ASES score was 52.1 ± 8.5. There were no reoperations to date, and five patients had anterosuperior escape.

Conclusions:

Safe removal of a reverse replacement and conversion to hemicement spacer or hemiarthroplasty can provide pain relief in those patients with a dislocated or infected reverse replacement. However, the shoulder will likely have very poor function and anterosuperior escape postoperatively. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment for the failed reverse shoulder replacement.

Level of Evidence:

Therapeutic Level IV.     

Convertible stemmed implants simplify revision from anatomic to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is an increasingly common procedure performed to treat end-stage glenohumeral arthritis; however, with 15-year survival rates of anatomic TSA of only 45% revision procedures are also increasingly common. In cases of revision to reverse prostheses, the use of convertible stem systems (in which the same humeral stem may be used for both anatomic and reverse arthroplasty designs) simplifies the operative procedure by allowing retention of the humeral stem, resulting in significant decreases in operative times, intra-operative blood loss, procedural and post-procedural complication rates, and cost when compared to non-convertible implant systems.     

Risk factors and reasons for revision after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundAs the indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) continue to expand, the need for revision surgery after RSA will become more frequent. The objective of this study was to characterize patient-related risk factors for revision RSA and to compare reasons for early vs. late revision after RSA.MethodsPatients who underwent primary and revision RSA from 2015 to 2019 were identified in a national insurance database. Subgroups of early revision (defined as revision within 1 year postoperatively) and late revision (more than 1 year postoperatively) were also identified. The primary outcome of interest was patient-related risk factors for revision RSA. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-related risk factors for early vs. late revision RSA and to compare surgical diagnoses for early vs. late revision RSA. Univariate analysis using chi-square tests was performed to analyze any differences in reasons for revision. Multivariate regression was subsequently utilized to control for any confounding variables when identifying risk factors for revision.ResultsA total of 28,880 patients were identified who underwent RSA, with 553 (1.9%) patients undergoing revision RSA. Three hundred eighty-five patients (69.6%) were classified as early revision (within one year), while 141 (30.4%) underwent late revision more than a year postoperatively. Risk factors for overall revisions included age <65 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23, P = .032), male sex (OR = 2.21, P < .001), type I diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.44, P = .039), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR = 1.79, P < .001), and depression (OR = 1.33, P = .002) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.63, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.25, P < .001) compared to RSA performed for arthritis. Risk factors for early revision RSA included male sex (OR = 2.54, P < .001) and CHF (OR = 1.81, P < .001) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.84, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.44, P < .001). Risk factors for late revision RSA included male sex (OR = 1.62, P = .004), CHF (OR = 1.83, P = .005), steroid use (OR = 1.79, P = .036), human immunodeficiency virus (OR = 3.50, P = .038), and RSA performed for glenohumeral instability (OR = 1.92, P = .004). Early revision RSA was more commonly performed for instability (63.1% vs. 25.0%, P < .001) and stiffness (5.5% vs. 1.2%, P = .021) than late revisions.ConclusionRevision RSA is uncommon at early follow-up. Overall patient-related risk factors for revision include male sex, age <65 years, type I diabetes mellitus, CHF, and depression in addition to RSAs performed for fracture and glenohumeral instability. Instability and stiffness were more common indications for early compared to late revision. Instability remained the most common reason for overall revision followed by periprosthetic infection.